1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Jordan Ludwig

Jordan Ludwig

Partner | He/Him/His
Partner | He/Him/His
amx1ZHdpZ0Bjcm93ZWxsLmNvbQ==
VCardLinkedIn
VCardLinkedIn

Areas of Focus

Overview

Jordan has more than a decade of experience in creatively and tenaciously guiding companies through their most challenging, cutting-edge antitrust and UCL lawsuits on both sides of the “v.” His track record of successfully resolving cases has spanned diverse industries and earned him numerous accolades, including recently being named a “Lawyer on the Fast Track” by The Recorder.

He has extensive experience litigating high-stakes cases under Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act at all stages of litigation—including at trial and on appeal. His practice runs the gamut and has included matters involving price fixing, bid rigging, market allocation, group boycotts, exclusive dealing, tying, unilateral refusals to deal, algorithmic pricing, Walker Process fraud, sham patent litigation, information sharing, and pay-for-delay, among others. Jordan is also proficient in matters involving the California Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law (Section 17200)—both in litigating cases and serving as a thought leader. He is a co-author of the UCL chapter in the California Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law treatise. Further, for the past several years, he has served as an editor for the ABA’s Antitrust Magazine Online.

Jordan maintains an active pro bono practice, where he has worked on issues related to voting rights, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, domestic violence, and immigration.

Career & Education

    • Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, J.D., cum laude, 2011
    • University of Maryland, College Park, B.A., with honors, history, 2008
    • Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, J.D., cum laude, 2011
    • University of Maryland, College Park, B.A., with honors, history, 2008

    • California
    • California

Jordan's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.21.25

DOJ Secures First Criminal Wage-Fixing Conviction in Home Health Care Staffing Case

In a landmark verdict on April 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division notched its first-ever jury trial conviction for criminal wage-fixing under the Sherman Act in United States v. Eduardo Lopez in the District of Nevada. A home health care staffing executive, Eduardo (“Eddie”) Lopez, was found guilty of (1) conspiring with several competing home healthcare staffing agencies to fix the wages of home health nurses in the Las Vegas area, and (2) defrauding the unwitting buyer of his agency by concealing the then-ongoing antitrust investigation into nurse wage and hiring practices. It is worth noting, however, that while the Lopez conviction is a significant milestone for the DOJ’s campaign into labor antitrust violations, wage-fixing cases may be more straightforward to prosecute than no-poach agreements, where the DOJ still has not prevailed before a jury. This victory nonetheless affirms the DOJ’s ability to criminally prosecute labor market collusion as a criminal offense after numerous failed attempts, signaling the prudence of further caution for companies and individuals to mitigate risk in labor antitrust markets....

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • Defending an Ivy League university in a class-action lawsuit alleging that the Ivy League schools engaged in an unlawful price-fixing agreement in declining to award athletic scholarships. The Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the matter is currently on appeal.
  • Defending a private university in a class-action lawsuit alleging that the College Board and various universities conspired with respect to certain financial aid policies and practices.
  • Representing an elite college in DOJ investigations related to early decision admission practices and financial aid methodologies. No enforcement action was taken against our client in either investigation.
  • Defending a large global hospitality company in multiple lawsuits alleging a conspiracy among various hotel brands regarding branded keyword advertising. Five days into the jury trial of one of these matters brought by a downstream online travel agency, the matter resolved and the plaintiff publicly apologized to the company and the company’s founding family. During discovery in a related consumer class action, class counsel abandoned their damages class, and the matter resolved shortly thereafter.
  • Representing a multichannel video programming distributor as a plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging a conspiracy between the nation’s largest broadcast station group and its “sidecars.”
  • Defending a health care distributor in a class-action lawsuit alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding generic drugs.
  • Defending a pharmacy services administrative organization (PSAO) in a lawsuit alleging the PSAO had violated California’s Unfair Practices Act by engaging in below-cost pricing. We succeeded in compelling the case to arbitration from California Superior Court.
  • Defending a local restaurant group in a class-action lawsuit brought under California’s antitrust and unfair competition laws involving a 3 percent surcharge to pay for employee health care. Prior to summary judgment, we obtained decertification of the class.
  • Defending a manufacturer of printer consumables in a Lanham Act, UCL, and FAL lawsuit alleging false advertising and unfair business practices related to sales on a large e-commerce website.
  • Counseling multiple clients on issues related to algorithmic pricing and AI.
  • Representing multiple health plans as plaintiffs in the In re HIV Antitrust Litigation.
  • Representing many of the country’s largest merchants as plaintiffs in the In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation.
  • Defending a health care distributor in an antitrust class-action lawsuit regarding syringes and catheters. We obtained dismissal of the matter on a motion to dismiss.
  • Defending a large integrated health care system in a monopolization lawsuit.
  • Representing a developer in a State Attorney General bid-rigging investigation. The office dropped their antitrust investigation of our client with no action taken.
  • Defending a senior executive in a DOJ criminal antitrust investigation into the packaged seafood industry.
  • Representing General Motors as a plaintiff in the In re Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation.
  • Representing a major manufacturer of appliances as a plaintiff in the In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litigation.

Jordan's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.21.25

DOJ Secures First Criminal Wage-Fixing Conviction in Home Health Care Staffing Case

In a landmark verdict on April 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division notched its first-ever jury trial conviction for criminal wage-fixing under the Sherman Act in United States v. Eduardo Lopez in the District of Nevada. A home health care staffing executive, Eduardo (“Eddie”) Lopez, was found guilty of (1) conspiring with several competing home healthcare staffing agencies to fix the wages of home health nurses in the Las Vegas area, and (2) defrauding the unwitting buyer of his agency by concealing the then-ongoing antitrust investigation into nurse wage and hiring practices. It is worth noting, however, that while the Lopez conviction is a significant milestone for the DOJ’s campaign into labor antitrust violations, wage-fixing cases may be more straightforward to prosecute than no-poach agreements, where the DOJ still has not prevailed before a jury. This victory nonetheless affirms the DOJ’s ability to criminally prosecute labor market collusion as a criminal offense after numerous failed attempts, signaling the prudence of further caution for companies and individuals to mitigate risk in labor antitrust markets....

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.21.25

DOJ Secures First Criminal Wage-Fixing Conviction in Home Health Care Staffing Case

Client Alert | 12 min read | 03.19.25

Right To Repair – A Growing Trend for States Creating Compliance Challenges for Manufacturers

Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.31.25

California Law Revision Commission Votes To Propose Expansive Changes to California’s Antitrust Laws

Publication | 01.15.25

Antitrust: A New Frontier: Algorithmic Pricing Class Actions

View All Insights

Practices

Industries

Jordan's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.21.25

DOJ Secures First Criminal Wage-Fixing Conviction in Home Health Care Staffing Case

In a landmark verdict on April 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division notched its first-ever jury trial conviction for criminal wage-fixing under the Sherman Act in United States v. Eduardo Lopez in the District of Nevada. A home health care staffing executive, Eduardo (“Eddie”) Lopez, was found guilty of (1) conspiring with several competing home healthcare staffing agencies to fix the wages of home health nurses in the Las Vegas area, and (2) defrauding the unwitting buyer of his agency by concealing the then-ongoing antitrust investigation into nurse wage and hiring practices. It is worth noting, however, that while the Lopez conviction is a significant milestone for the DOJ’s campaign into labor antitrust violations, wage-fixing cases may be more straightforward to prosecute than no-poach agreements, where the DOJ still has not prevailed before a jury. This victory nonetheless affirms the DOJ’s ability to criminally prosecute labor market collusion as a criminal offense after numerous failed attempts, signaling the prudence of further caution for companies and individuals to mitigate risk in labor antitrust markets....

View All Insights